June 07, 2019

observations 6/7

About 50 documents were added to the Waterbury court case file today -- from NYCB, SAB, and lawyers for Finlay, Ramasar and Catazaro. Among them were texts between the plaintiff and Chase Finlay which occurred long before her sudden discovery of the photos and texts on his computer that suggest she was sharing daring pictures of herself with him and requesting that he send daring pictures back to her. One of the texts shows that she knew long before her sudden discovery on his computer that he was sharing daring photos with his friends.

Also of interest was correspondence from SAB's attorney to the plaintiff's attorney accusing him of "Indeed, it would appear that, in signing and filing the Amended Complaint, you knowingly failed to comply with your ethical obligations under Rule 3.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct as well as your obligations under 22 NYCRR § 130-1. l .a(b )." and warning "If you have a basis for making these allegations consistent with your obligations as an officer of the court, we invite you to share it with us immediately. Otherwise, we may have no alternative but to seek an award of sanctions (including reasonable attorney's fees) against you, your firm, and your client."

The other juicy exhibits were (1) the plaintiff's SAB Student Profile Report from June 2016 which was nearly all redacted but showed her Status as Not Returning and (2) her interview with the Guardian in which she said that she first met Finlay at the 2016 Fall SAB Gala which was three months after she left the school. Her lawyer wrote in all of the various complaints that she met Finlay while she was a student at SAB.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Of interesting notation is that the emails between SAB's lawyer and Merson exactly mirror what Longhitano has been saying throughout his filing's prior to hiring an attorney; Waterbury was NOT a student at the time of the allegations as Merson claims and also the potential ethical violation as an officer of the court that Longhitano brought up in both his arguments and his "Exhibit C' in his original filing. I could be wrong, but based on what I see here, the tables have quickly turned against Waterbury with this new information.

I agree. It all could cost Merson and his plaintiff a lot -- in money and reputation. In the future, no one will want anything to do with either of them -- except for Gia Kourlas and the NYT who look for clicks where ever they can find them while ignoring ethics and truth.

I relished reading the legal bitch-slapping handed down by SAB's legal team. In reading the correspondence between Eaton and Merson, you can immediately see how she lays out her facts plainly. Whil Merson, on the other hand, does the equivalent of "no, you!"

In particular, Eaton's last letter where she tells Merson her intent to file a motion to dismiss was so badass. "We have a deal. Thanks and have a nice weekend."

yukionna, it really was a legal bitch-slapping and there's no other way to describe it. As I said above, I believe these submissions really turn the tables on Waterbury and I have to imagine that they haven't even released the really juicy stuff. Both Waterbury, and even more importantly her attorney, seemed to really cross the boundaries of ethics according to these filings with straight-out lies and misrepresentations. I mean, Waterbury has contradicted herself in her filings and affidavits. SAB is the first defendant to come out with accusatory stuff against them with the exception of Longhitano. The difference is he just mentioned it as a point of interest and SAB have actually given statues and codes as to the ethical transgressions of the Plaintiff and her attorney. I think the defendants just turned into victims as it is beyond clear that Ramasar, Catazaro, and Longhitano, as well as NYCB and SAB, genuinely had nothing to do with this case and with Waterbury. As many people have said from the beginning, this is an ex-boyfriend versus ex-girlfriend issue involving *only* Finlay and Waterbury. It's my understanding that judges do NOT like these frivolous types of lawsuits and the judge could very well not only dismiss it all, but sanction and penalize Waterbury and Merson. Guess we'll have to see....

The plaintiff's attorney knows full well that he has no case against anyone except possibly Finlay, and now that's even in doubt. But, if he can advance past NYCB's and SAB's Motions to Dismiss, he can then go on a fishing expedition via an outrageous discovery demand for documents that might publicly embarrass NYCB or SAB in some way unrelated to Waterbury. He then might have a chance to extort a settlement. He is really taking a risk that isn't likely to pay off and may cost him and his client a lot.

Haglund, interesting point, I never thought of that. Based solely upon what we see and read it doesn't seem likely, but you never know. Merson has now exposed himself as a possible future defendant with his rampant accusations due to his total lack of due diligence as SAB mentioned. That press conference he held on 9/18 is not going to help him if any one of the defendant's motions get dismissed. As SAB said, he signed off on the accusations as "true and accurate" and it's been clearly shown to be the opposite.

Longhitano hasn't yet replied to the newly amended complaint. Don't know why, but he may have some extra time. And, of course, he may be preparing something additional since the plaintiff's actions caused him to lose his job and possibly make it nearly impossible to find another one.

Longhitano's filing just hit the docket. This is the link to the Memorandum of Support. Pretty straightforward and I'd venture to say that his attorney is waiting to release more info upon his reply to Merson's reply whenever that is filed.

I've read through it a few times and the underlying hypothesis they seem to be leaning on is First Amendment rights which Longhitano presented in his original motion to dismiss citing Hustler v. Falwell.